coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The first applicant, Mr Petro Mykhaylovych Lozynskyy, was born in 1964; the second applicant, Mr Viktor Fedorovych Ashurkov, was born in 1955; the third applicant, Mrs Mariya Vasylivna Lozynska, was born in 1965. All the applicants are Ukrainian nationals and reside in the Bashtansky District of the Mykolayiv region.
5.  On 13 November and 18 December 2000 the Bashtanka Court, in three separate judgments, ordered a private JSC “Peremoga” (hereafter “the JSC”) to pay the applicants, respectively, UAH 2335, 1798 and 1552[3].
6.  On 8 June 2001 the Bashtanka Court, upon the applicants' complaint, declared unlawful the failure of the Bashtanka Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) to enforce the judgments of 13 November and 18 December 2000. The court established that the Bailiffs had taken no steps to enforce the judgments. In particular, no measures had been undertaken to attach and sell the debtor's property.
7.  During 2002 the Bailiffs attached and sold the JSC's property, following which the applicants were paid UAH 1,059, 910 and 1,368, respectively.
8.  As on 28 April 2004 the Mykolayiv Commercial Court declared the JSC insolvent, the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writs of execution to the liquidation commission.
9.  The judgments' debts owed to the applicants were paid in total in September 2005.
10.  By decisions of 21 September and 1 October 2001 the Bashtanka Court awarded each applicant UAH 590[4] against the Bailiffs for non-pecuniary damage caused by the failure to execute the judgments given in their favour against the JSC.
11.  On 8 January 2002 the Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of 21 September and 1 October 2001.
12.  On 16 September 2004 the writs of execution were returned to the applicants unenforced due to the debtor's lack of funds.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Yenakiyeve.
5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his former employers, the State-owned mines “Yenakiyivska” and “Poltavska”, seeking compensation for damage to his health.
6.  On 12 February 1999 the Yenakiyeve Court (Єнакіївський міський суд) ordered the mine “Poltavska” to pay the applicant a lump sum of 10,922.79 hryvnyas (UAH)[1]. On 22 March 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court (the “Regional Court”; Донецький обласний суд) amended this judgment, having additionally awarded the applicant arrears in monthly allowances for the period of October 1996 – October 1999.
7.  On 22 March 1999 the Regional Court ordered the mine “Yenakiyivska” to pay the applicant the total UAH 10,263.24[2] in monthly allowance arrears.
8.  After the above decisions had become final and the enforcement proceedings had been instituted in their respect, the applicant unsuccessfully requested the judicial authorities to re-open the proceedings, seeking higher compensation.
9.  According to the Government, the judgments debts were fully paid to the applicant in several instalments, last payments having been made in September 2003. To this end, the Government presented copies of the decisions to terminate the enforcement proceedings taken on 19 and 26 September 2003 by the Bailiffs (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Єнакіївського міського управління юстиції) in respect of the mines “Yenakiyivska” and “Poltavska” respectively.
10.  The applicant maintained that he had received only a part of the judgments debt due to him. He did not, however, specify the outstanding amount and provided no information on whether he had challenged the Bailiffs' decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings.
11.  After the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant additionally submitted a number of documents concerning his other disputes and proceedings against various parties, however, he neither described the relevant facts, nor articulated any separate complaints in their respect.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Kryvyy Rig. He was an employee of the “Kryvbaszalizrudkom” OJSC (“the Company”; ВАТ “Кривбасзалізрудком”). The “Ukrrudprom” State Company (ДВАТ «Укррудпром») owned 100% of the Company's share capital.
5.  In March 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kryvyy Rig (Дзержинський районний суд м. Кривий Ріг), seeking his reinstatement as an overman (гірничий майстер) and compensatory redress for allegedly unlawful dismissal.
6.  On 2 November 2001 the court ordered the applicant's reinstatement and partly allowed his claims for compensation, having awarded him 12,231.37 hryvnyas (UAH)[1]. The Company appealed, but reinstated the applicant.
7.  On 4 June 2002 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's reinstatement, however, recalculated the compensation and awarded him UAH 7,038.38[2]. The judgment was not appealed against in cassation within the statutory time-limit and became final.
8.  On 30 July 2002 the Zhovtnevy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтневого району м. Кривий Ріг) instituted the enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 30 August 2002 the enforcement proceedings were stayed on account of the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the Company.
10.  On 26 April 2004 the enforcement proceedings were resumed, as the bankruptcy proceedings had been discontinued.
11.  In May 2004 the judgment given in the applicant's favour was enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Kryvyy Rig.
5.  On 19 July 1994 the applicant, who worked in the system of public education at the material time, became permanently disabled following injury to his back and legs. The injury was recorded as a work accident and since February 1995 the applicant was receiving monthly disability allowances from the Ternivsky Department of Public Education (the “Department”; Тернівське районне відділення народної освіти).
6.  On 17 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (the “District Court”; Жовтневий районний суд м. Кривий Ріг) seeking a higher allowance.
7.  On 4 March 1998 the Department lodged a counter-claim seeking to establish that the applicant's trauma was not work-related.
8.  Between September 1997 and December 2001 the District Court scheduled some thirty hearings, with intervals ranging from two weeks to four months. On numerous occasions the hearings were adjourned on account of the parties' conduct (requests for adjournments or absences). According to the court records, five such adjournments were attributable to the applicant, twelve – to the Department, and eight – to both parties. Two hearings were adjourned in connection with court matters.
9.  On 7 December 2001 the District Court left the applicant's claim and the Department's counter-claim without consideration on account of the parties' repeated failure to appear.
10.  According to the applicant, he learned about this decision only in May 2002, from the District Court's response to his request for expedition of the proceedings. The applicant submitted to the Court a copy of this request dated 23 April 2002 and a copy of the District Court's response of 23 May 2002, in which the court was informing the applicant that his claims had been left without consideration on 7 December 2001. The applicant further noted that on 11 January 2002 the District Court had summoned him for a hearing for 4 February 2002. To this end he submitted a copy of a summons of 11 January 2002, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“The Zhovtnevy District Court of Kryvyy Rig summons you as a plaintiff for 10 p.m. on 4 February 2002 in connection with the case for compensation of damage...”
The applicant explained that he attended this hearing together with his witness Mr U., but it was adjourned on account of the Department's failure to appear. He presented a copy of Mr U.'s statement confirming he had appeared for the hearing of 4 February 2002.
11.  According to the Government, the applicant learned about the decision of 7 December 2001 no later than on 24 December 2001, when he visited the District Court and requested certain documents from his case-file. They further noted that by the summons of 11 January 2002 the District Court had intended to invite the applicant to collect the documents he had requested. To this end, the Government presented a statement signed by Judge K. of the District Court.
4.  The first applicant, Fehime Ete (hereafter referred to simply as “the applicant”), was born in 1960 and lives in Siirt.
5.  On 21 October 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding members of an illegal armed organisation. She was remanded in custody on 24 October 2001.
6.  However, at the request of the Governor of the State of Emergency Region and the public prosecutor, pursuant to Article 3 (c) of Law-Decree 430, which allowed them to take further measures within the framework of the state of emergency, a single judge at the Van State Security Court authorised, on 25 November 2001, the applicant's transfer from prison to the Diyarbakır gendarmerie command for further interrogation for a duration not exceeding ten days. This period was extended by the same court for another ten days on 5 December 2001. The objection lodged by the applicant's lawyer against this decision was dismissed on 7 December 2001.
7.  Between 25 November and 12 December 2001, the applicant was held in the Diyarbakır and Siirt gendarmerie command. On 12 December 2001 the applicant was returned to prison.
8.  The subsequent criminal proceedings brought against the applicant ended with her acquittal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and resides in the town of Shakhty, Rostov region, Russia.
6.  At the material time the applicant lived in Ukraine.
7.  In 1979, as a result of an accident, for which a State-owned mine was deemed liable, the applicant had her arms amputated.
8.  On 23 September 1980 the Sverdlovskyy District Court awarded the applicant 80 Soviet roubles in life monthly compensation from the “Sverdlovskantratsyt” mining enterprise (Виробниче об'єднання «Свердловськантрацит»). The applicant had been receiving these payments until 2001.
9.  In 2000 the applicant moved to Russia.
10.  On 11 September 2000, following the applicant's request to review the amount of compensation due to her, the Sverdlovskyy Town Court awarded the applicant a lump sum of 2,748.60[1] and 152.28[2] Ukrainian hryvnas in monthly payments from the State Krasnodonsko-Sverdlovske Mine Liquidation Department (Краснодонсько-Свердловське управління по ліквідації шахт).
11.  In October 2001 the court sent the writs of enforcement to the Voroshylovskyy Bailiffs' Service. The applicant informed the Court that her written requests about the course of the enforcement proceedings remained unanswered.
12.  By letters of 28 November and 9 December 2003, the Ministry of Fuel and Energy, and the Donetsk State Administration, respectively, informed the applicant that, since April 2001, the monthly payments were to be made by the Social Security Fund. However, at the time of the accident the applicant was not employed by the mine, and the legislation in force did not foresee social security payments in such cases.
13.  In their submissions of 11 December 2006 the Government stated that on 5 December 2001 the payment order for the lump sum of UAH 2,748.60 had been submitted to the Department of the State Treasury in Donetsk Region. On an unspecified date this amount was transferred to the Bailiffs' Service banking account since the applicant's whereabouts were allegedly unknown.
14.  The applicant informed the Court that in November 2006 she had been requested to provide her bank account details with a view to transfer her an above amount. The parties did not inform the Court whether the judgment of 11 September 2000 had been finally enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Mykolayiv.
5.  The applicant is a former employee of the State-owned enterprise “Mashproekt” (hereinafter “MP”). In June 1999 staff of this enterprise refused to issue upon the applicant's request a certificate about his work and salary, which he required for the re-calculation of his retirement pension.
6.  On 14 December 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Mykolayiv (hereinafter “the District Court”) ordered MP to provide the applicant with the requested certificate. In particular, the court ordered MP to certify that as of 30 March 1978 the applicant worked as the head of one of MP's departments. This judgment became final on 19 January 2000.
7.  On 24 February 2000 the Leninsky Bailiffs' Office of Mykolayiv (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) instituted the enforcement proceedings. On 29 March 2000 the proceedings were terminated.
8.  On 2 August 2000 the District Court ordered the Bailiffs to resume the enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 23 August 2002 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings as the director of MP had sent a letter to the applicant.
10.  In September 2002 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint against this decision.
11.  On 18 January 2005 the District Court quashed the Bailiffs' decision of 23 August 2002 and ordered resumption of the enforcement proceedings.
12.  On 30 May 2005 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.
13.  On 18 November 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as on 17 November 2005 MP provided the applicant with the certificate.
14.   On 13 November 2006 the Head of the Bailiffs quashed the decision of 18 November 2005 on the ground that the certificate provided to the applicant did not comply with the requirements ordered by the judgment of 14 December 1999.
15.  The judgment of 14 December 1999 remains unenforced.
16.  In January 2002 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint against the director of MP seeking to be admitted to his work position.
17.  On 8 February 2002 the District Court left the applicant's claim without consideration as the issue should be examined within the civil proceedings.
18.  On 3 April 2002 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed this ruling and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
19.  On 17 February 2003 the District Court left the applicant's administrative complaint without consideration and explained that the applicant should lodge a claim within the civil proceedings.
20.  On 23 April 2003 and 5 July 2004 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this ruling.
6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău.
7.  After having been excluded in 1994 from a State-run apartment building association, the applicant brought an action against it, seeking the restitution of the money she had invested in a three-roomed apartment.
8.  On 29 April 1996 the Râşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the building association to pay her 23,733.80 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 4,550 euros (EUR) at the time).
9.  The building association appealed unsuccessfully against the judgment on two occasions and, by a final judgment of 4 November 1997, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 29 April 1996.
10.  In December 1997 and May 1998 the applicant received MDL 3,071.10 and MDL 1,970, respectively.
11.  Following several complaints about non-enforcement of the judgment lodged by the applicant with the Ministry of Justice, on 5 September 2000 and on 19 January 2001 the Ministry of Justice requested the Bailiff to take all the necessary steps to enforce the judgment.
12.  The final judgment of 4 November 1997 has not been enforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Dzerzhyns'k, Donetsk region.
5.  On 3 October 2000 the Dzerzhyns'k Court awarded the applicant against the Gagarina coal mine (owned by the Artemvugillya State Company) UAH 107,684 (EUR 22,518) in social benefits arrears and UAH 1,946 (EUR 407) in monthly payments as of 3 October 2000.
6.  On 9 November 2000 the Mykytivsky District Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) instituted the enforcement proceedings and on the same day suspended them in respect of the social benefits arrears due to the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor pending before the Donetsk Commercial Court.
7.  On 15 November 2000 the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case were resumed and joined to the other enforcement proceedings against the debtor.
8.  On 5 April 2002 the Mykytivsky District Court of Gorlivka rejected the applicant's claim against the alleged Bailiffs' inactivity. On 14 October 2002 and 10 June 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.
9.  On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel transformed the debtor into a subdivision of the Artemvugillya Company.
10.  On 18 September 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 15,000.
11.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant was paid UAH 1,000.
12.  On 18 October 2004 the applicant was paid UAH 1,617.
13.  On 19 November 2004 the applicant was paid UAH 68,916.
14.  On 23 December 2004 the applicant was paid the remainder of the debt - UAH 21,345.
15.  As to the judgment of 3 October 2000 in part of monthly payments of UAH 1,945 to the applicant, the writ of execution was issued on the same day and the Bailiffs transferred it to the Industrial Accidents Insurance Fund (Фонд соціального страхування від нещасних випадків на виробництві і професійних захворювань). The monthly payments are transferred to the applicant without delays.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Seewen, Switzerland.
5.  On 17 May 1982 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody. On 8 July 1982 he was remanded in custody.
6.  On 6 December 1982 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
7.  On 19 February 1985 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-four years' imprisonment. This judgment was quashed by the Military Court of Cassation on 10 April 1990.
8.  On 27 November 1990 the applicant was released from detention.
9.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Courts, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case.
10.  On 13 July 1998 the Diyarbakır Assize Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired. At the time of this decision the applicant was not represented by a lawyer before this court. However, this judgment was erroneously notified to Mr S.D. (the legal representative of another co-accused, who bore the same name and surname as the applicant, during the proceedings before the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court) and became final on 12 March 1999.
11.  The applicant inquired about the developments in his case on 16 May 2000. As the judgment was in his favour, the applicant did not lodge an appeal with the Court of Cassation.
4.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1963 respectively. The first applicant is currently detained in the Bolu F-Type Prison and the second applicant is detained in the Edirne F-Type Prison.
5.  On 24 and 28 October 1993 respectively the applicants were taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the TKP‑ML (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist).
6.  On 8 November 1993 a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicants' detention on remand.
7.  On 6 January 1994 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants and eight other persons. The applicants were charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, contrary to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism (Law no. 3713).
8.  On 27 January 1994 the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court held the first hearing in the case.
9.  On 27 November 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court submitted his opinion on the merits of the case against the applicants, requesting that they be convicted of the original charge.
10.  On 3 June 2002 the applicants again requested to be released pending trial before the first-instance court. On the same day, the court dismissed their request.
11.  On 4 June 2002 the applicants filed an objection against the decision of 3 June 2002.
12.  On 5 June 2002 the 5th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court dismissed the applicants' objection, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case-file.
13.  Between 27 January 1994 and 23 October 2002 the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court held 44 hearings. At the end of each hearing, the first-instance court, relying on the state of the evidence and the nature of the offence, refused to release the applicants.
14.  On 23 October 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
15.  On 5 May 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 23 October 2002.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Batman.
6.  On 10 April 1997 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of her involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). The police officers drew up an arrest protocol in which they noted that they had found a false identity card on the applicant and seized it for the investigation.
7.  Following the Batman public prosecutor's order, the applicant's detention period was extended.
8.  On 15 April 1997 police officers took statements from the applicant. She confessed to being a member of the PKK and stated that she had been involved in armed clashes with the security forces.
9.  On 16 April 1997 the applicant's statements were taken by the Batman public prosecutor to whom she again confessed to being a member of the PKK and stated that she had been involved in political education and propaganda activities for the organisation.
10.  On the same day she was brought before a single judge at the Batman Magistrates' Court who took her statement and ordered her detention on remand.
11.  On 2 May 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant under Articles 125 and 40 of the Criminal Code with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory and aiding and abetting an illegal organisation.
12.  Between 5 May 1997 and 18 April 2000, the Diyarbakır State Security Court held nineteen hearings and heard a number of witnesses. During these hearings, the applicant renounced her statements taken during her detention in police custody. Witnesses heard by the court stated that the applicant was an active member of the PKK and that she had been involved in armed clashes with the security forces.
13.  On 18 April 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Taking into account her confessions before the court, the death penalty was commuted to a life sentence of imprisonment.
14.  On 19 December 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. It reasoned that the decision was justified as the evidence in the case file was capable of proving that the applicant was an active member of the PKK, which was an armed illegal organisation and carried out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.
15.  On 24 January 2001 the Court of Cassation's decision was pronounced in the absence of the applicant's representative.